urbanSTL

steve wrote:^Also little recognized is the somewhat schizophrenic nature of our national character. On the one hand we like to say that we're egalitarian. On the other, we say that liberty is our most cherished value. These two principles are often in conflict, and because we refuse to acknowledge this tension, these types of arguments will continue forever.



"We must help the poor! They're our brothers and sisters! This isn't fair!"



v.



"People are free to do as they wish! Why take from me to give to another? People should be accountable for their actions!"

Did I ever say I mind paying taxes to help the poor? I just said I mind paying taxes to where the person living off MY taxes will be living in a BETTER neighborhood than me even though I am the one that has to work 60 hour weeks. And if anyone thinks that makes sense...well, then obviously you either have not experienced real life yet or just have your own reasoning that is different than anything that can be dictated by a thing called logic.

drunkrusski wrote:

steve wrote:^Also little recognized is the somewhat schizophrenic nature of our national character. On the one hand we like to say that we're egalitarian. On the other, we say that liberty is our most cherished value. These two principles are often in conflict, and because we refuse to acknowledge this tension, these types of arguments will continue forever.



"We must help the poor! They're our brothers and sisters! This isn't fair!"



v.



"People are free to do as they wish! Why take from me to give to another? People should be accountable for their actions!"

Did I ever say I mind paying taxes to help the poor? I just said I mind paying taxes to where the person living off MY taxes will be living in a BETTER neighborhood than me even though I am the one that has to work 60 hour weeks. And if anyone thinks that makes sense...well, then obviously you either have not experienced real life yet or just have your own reasoning that is different than anything that can be dictated by a thing called logic.

Um, sir? I wasn't addressing you. I was just making a general statement. I know I can come across as an a**hole, but I don't know why people think I'm speaking to them specifically. I wasn't attacking you or anyone else for that matter. I thought I was adding to the discussion, but I guess not. Steve out.

The issue in FPSE should be viewed in ways other than simply rich v. poor.



The issue in FPSE, as it has been, and will continue to be in other areas of St. Louis, is really just the betterment of the neighborhood, towards the benefit of the city as a whole.



If the only measurement used is an economic one, then replacing rundown rental units with luxury condos will achieve that goal quickly. Much in the same way that distancing underperforming students from taking tests like the SAT improves a school's overall performance rate. The question is who benefits from such a myopic approach.



Our measurement of success should be viewed with an eye towards all concerned. As a strategy towards improvement we would do well to recognize that a new upscale restaurant on the corner doesn't necessarily add to the quality of life for many current residents, and that putting all our neighborhood improvement eggs in any one such basket is probably not the smartest strategy to take.



A little questioning is a good thing, especially if it results in a little more creativity on the part of those making decisions. In a truly vibrant and revitalized FPSE many different interests will have benefited from the city's efforts, and all will be better off as a result, not just a select few.

steve wrote:

drunkrusski wrote:

steve wrote:^Also little recognized is the somewhat schizophrenic nature of our national character. On the one hand we like to say that we're egalitarian. On the other, we say that liberty is our most cherished value. These two principles are often in conflict, and because we refuse to acknowledge this tension, these types of arguments will continue forever.



"We must help the poor! They're our brothers and sisters! This isn't fair!"



v.



"People are free to do as they wish! Why take from me to give to another? People should be accountable for their actions!"

Did I ever say I mind paying taxes to help the poor? I just said I mind paying taxes to where the person living off MY taxes will be living in a BETTER neighborhood than me even though I am the one that has to work 60 hour weeks. And if anyone thinks that makes sense...well, then obviously you either have not experienced real life yet or just have your own reasoning that is different than anything that can be dictated by a thing called logic.

Um, sir? I wasn't addressing you. I was just making a general statement. I know I can come across as an a**hole, but I don't know why people think I'm speaking to them specifically. I wasn't attacking you or anyone else for that matter. I thought I was adding to the discussion, but I guess not. Steve out.

Well...since I am the main one who spoke out and said that the word gentrification is often used inapprorpriately, I assumed you were talking to me or at least speaking about the ideas I was representing. Nor did I think you came off as an a**hole. You made a point, I made a counter-point.

Grover wrote:^ I agree until you state that only a "select few" may benefit from the changes in FPSE. It seems to be that only a select few are angry about the changes and shout "gentrification" as a swear word. Those few certainly have rights, but many will benefit form a developing neighborhood, many more will largely be unaffected and a select few will be negatively affected.

As in most cases, it's quite likely that the select few who voiced their concerns (organizing a meeting which became the impetus for this thread) actually represent the concerns of a good many more people, who aren't normally inclined to speak out.



I share your disapproval of their use of the term "gentrification", but I'm also sympathetic to their concerns.



While I agree with your predictions, I also think they would be accurate in a good many instances of neighborhood redevelopment, no matter what the eventual approach. Although I think a certain amount of the rhetoric being tossed around is unfortunate, underneath it all are some very valid issues. Addressing them in a constructive way probably won't change the percentages you speak of, but might have a tremendous effect on who benefits from any redevelopment efforts, and how successful they prove in the long term.



I just can't think of any reason why redevelopment efforts in FPSE, or any city neighborhood for that matter, shouldn't at least focus somewhat on the interests of the people who currently reside there. What's the point of the city and state kicking in to help revitalize a neighborhood, if not to make life better for those who live there?



If an increase in property values is the only measurement of success, then I'd say the city is probably on the right track, at least for the short term. The problem is that a good percentage of the discussions on this forum seem to be dedicated to fixing other short term solutions, which seemed like great ideas at the time.



What if the goal was simply defined in terms of making the neighborhood a safe and vibrant place for residents to live in? Isn't it likely that other desired effects might follow? Seeking out and listening to the concerns of those who call the neighborhood their own takes some effort, and positive results might be further down the line than some would prefer, but in the long term, I think the results would prove much more lasting.

bring on the gentrification. I want St. Louis to succeed. Thanks.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I am not all about forcing an inordinate amount of affordable housing in neighborhoods. I believe that neighborhoods and cities can and should develop organically. Unfortunately, this often leads to market failures: a cluster of jobs and opportunities in areas where it is difficult to afford housing for the low income.

1) Allowing neighborhoods to develop organically often leads to market failures? Totally disagree, as what you describe would belie fundamental economic principals. Simply put: as developers, businesses, and new residents, regardless of gender or race, enter and redevelop an area, the intrinsic value of said area increases exponentially, assuming all other factors remain in a positive constant.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Section 8 never comprises a majority of houses on or block or in a neighborhood. Not even somewhat close. That would be completely contrary to the whole program's intent.

How could you possibly have the data to make this statement? Secondly, and judging by what I've read on Section 8, it would make total sense for landlords of Section 8 housing to group their properties together in low-rent, often dilapidated, areas. If this wasn't the case, how would you explain the Public Housing over on 14th and Park? For example: If I own two properties, one with Section 8 tenants and the gov't providing $400/month and one with high-end tenants paying $1000/month in rent, I would want these properties as far apart as possible as I would run the risk my high-paying tenants choosing not to live in an impoverished area.



Are you familiar with how Section 8 works? No person in Section 8 owns their home - which COULD be why you had a small group of people opposed to the gentrification of the Grove. Instead, low income families pay 30% of rent while the government furnishes the remainder to landlords.



It's make perfect sense for subsidized housing recipients to be afraid of gentrification. As property values in an area rise (as a result of neighborhood rehabilitation), landlords lose the incentive of renting to Section 8 recipients in lieu of; 1) renting to individuals that can pay a premium, or 2) rehabbing their flats into condos to command a price somewhat on par with the new development in the area.



And, quite frankly, what is the problem with this? I donate money to charities and I am volunteering my time to help a disabled homeowner on GoodFellow rehab her house, but I, along with most any other educated individual, would buy a house in an area in the hopes that area would appreciate in value, be free of major crime problems, and have neighbors that share in my hopes and wants for the neighborhood.



Yes, i did just insinuate the presence of Section 8 housing is directly related to crime. I mean, it think it's pretty obvious that low income areas are more susceptible to crime.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Is the opposition to Section 8 racist? Often so. The unresearched statement that Section 8 is damaging to city neighborhoods is the assumption that a) any black person in my neighborhood must be receiving Section 8, and b) that they cause all the problems in the neighborhood.

Matt - you're the only person in the thread that has made a correlation between race and Section 8 housing.



What a great discussion this is. This site has had numerous threads on the disdain for NLEC and how baldy it needs to be moved to make way for the development of Mid-town. We're know having a discussion on what to do with low income individuals that receive subsidized housing in areas that are experiencing rebirth, so the question remains: where do you transplant these people?

How long can one stay in Section 8 housing? I'd sure like to see it wiped clean from St. Louis. Section 8 clearly helps increase crime in various neighborhoods around St. Louis and worsens them when the program arrives. another government program that sounded great at first, but did far more harm in the long run. Someone please pay 70% of my rent...

ttricamo wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:I am not all about forcing an inordinate amount of affordable housing in neighborhoods. I believe that neighborhoods and cities can and should develop organically. Unfortunately, this often leads to market failures: a cluster of jobs and opportunities in areas where it is difficult to afford housing for the low income.

1) Allowing neighborhoods to develop organically often leads to market failures? Totally disagree, as what you describe would belie fundamental economic principals. Simply put: as developers, businesses, and new residents, regardless of gender or race, enter and redevelop an area, the intrinsic value of said area increases exponentially, assuming all other factors remain in a positive constant.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Section 8 never comprises a majority of houses on or block or in a neighborhood. Not even somewhat close. That would be completely contrary to the whole program's intent.

How could you possibly have the data to make this statement? Secondly, and judging by what I've read on Section 8, it would make total sense for landlords of Section 8 housing to group their properties together in low-rent, often dilapidated, areas. If this wasn't the case, how would you explain the Public Housing over on 14th and Park? For example: If I own two properties, one with Section 8 tenants and the gov't providing $400/month and one with high-end tenants paying $1000/month in rent, I would want these properties as far apart as possible as I would run the risk my high-paying tenants choosing not to live in an impoverished area.



Are you familiar with how Section 8 works? No person in Section 8 owns their home - which COULD be why you had a small group of people opposed to the gentrification of the Grove. Instead, low income families pay 30% of rent while the government furnishes the remainder to landlords.



It's make perfect sense for subsidized housing recipients to be afraid of gentrification. As property values in an area rise (as a result of neighborhood rehabilitation), landlords lose the incentive of renting to Section 8 recipients in lieu of; 1) renting to individuals that can pay a premium, or 2) rehabbing their flats into condos to command a price somewhat on par with the new development in the area.



And, quite frankly, what is the problem with this? I donate money to charities and I am volunteering my time to help a disabled homeowner on GoodFellow rehab her house, but I, along with most any other educated individual, would buy a house in an area in the hopes that area would appreciate in value, be free of major crime problems, and have neighbors that share in my hopes and wants for the neighborhood.



Yes, i did just insinuate the presence of Section 8 housing is directly related to crime. I mean, it think it's pretty obvious that low income areas are more susceptible to crime.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Is the opposition to Section 8 racist? Often so. The unresearched statement that Section 8 is damaging to city neighborhoods is the assumption that a) any black person in my neighborhood must be receiving Section 8, and b) that they cause all the problems in the neighborhood.

Matt - you're the only person in the thread that has made a correlation between race and Section 8 housing.



What a great discussion this is. This site has had numerous threads on the disdain for NLEC and how baldy it needs to be moved to make way for the development of Mid-town. We're know having a discussion on what to do with low income individuals that receive subsidized housing in areas that are experiencing rebirth, so the question remains: where do you transplant these people?

Your post could be summed up with the following. Subsidized properties tend to pop up in areas where landlords cannot collect market rate rent. Makes perfect sense.



Section 8 is a flawed program because it does in fact cluster Section 8 in already poor neighborhoods for the reason you described. It is a voluntary program (of course) and many landlords could not accept vouchers due to public outcry and/or exclusionary zoning even if for some reason they wanted to. Since Section 8 began in response to the failures of concentrated public housing projects (Pruitt-Igoe, for example), its purpose was to deconcentrate the poor and allow the poor to bypass the stigma of living in a physically and socially isolated, clearly identifiable subsidized unit.



If Section 8 were allowed in Chesterfield near the mall and in other scattered sites where there is an abundance of service sector jobs, the present problems associated with the program would not exist. Unfortunately, that cannot happen.



If you're denying that the discussion of Section 8 in St. Louis invariably has to do with race, I don't believe you have your hand on the pulse of working class, white St. Louis (or many other Northern industrial cities). Ever since St. Louis neighborhoods have begun to shift demographically since Pruitt-Igoe days, whites have fled and have cited Section 8 properties as the reason. I don't really even need to mention this point though, since all discussions of housing and subsidies in an urban context involve race/class.



It is important to note that each locality is voucher-limited. There is not an infinite amount, and the government has a preference for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Both programs have long waiting lists, indicating both high demand and limited supply.